Mother
appeals from the family court’s order terminating her residual paren=
tal
rights over T.B. and T.B.She
argues that, although she agreed to relinquish her residual rights, she di=
d not
do so knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.We affirm.

Mother
is the biological parent of T.B., born in March 1998, and T.B., born in Ma=
rch
2002. In August 2003, the children were adjudicated as children in need of=
care
and supervision.The disposi=
tion
report recommended that the children continue in State custody with the go=
al of
reunification with mother if no termination petition was filed.In March 2004, the Department for
Children and Families filed a motion to terminate mother’s residual
parental rights.At the hear=
ing on
the motion, mother, represented by counsel, agreed to relinquish her resid=
ual
parental rights.She execute=
d an
agreement to this effect, as well as a supporting affidavit and waiver. These documents were introduced i=
nto
evidence, without objection, and accepted by the family court.

In
August 2004, the court issued an order, based on her agreement and affidav=
it,
terminating mother’s residual parental rights.The court found that mother had e=
xecuted
the agreement voluntarily and without threat or promise.It found that mother had understo=
od that
by her agreement, and the court’s order terminating her rights, she =
would
have no further legal right to visitation or contact with the children. The court further found that moth=
er
understood that she could oppose the termination of her parental rights, h=
ave a
court hearing concerning the State’s petition, and have the court ma=
ke a
decision as to whether her rights should be terminated.The court stated that mother had =
given
considerable thought to her decision to agree to termination of her rights=
, and
she had done so because of her belief that termination was in the
children’s best interests.The court found that mother was not under the influence of any mood=
or
mind-altering drugs that could have affect her decision-making at the time=
that
she signed the agreement and affidavit.&n=
bsp;
Given mother’s voluntary relinquishment of her rights, the co=
urt
explained that there was no likelihood that she would be able to resume her
parental responsibilities within a reasonable period of time.The court also found that the chi=
ldren
were doing well in their foster home, and the foster parents intended to a=
dopt
the children if they were freed for adoption.Based on its findings, the court
concluded that there had been a substantial change in material circumstanc=
es,
and after analyzing the factors set forth in 33 V.S.A. § 5540, it
concluded that termination was in the children’s best interests.

In
September 2004, more than thirty-days after the court’s order was
entered, mother filed a pro se letter with the family court, asserting tha=
t at
the time she signed the agreement, affidavit, and waiver, she was scared a=
nd
confused, and she didn’t know what she was doing.She stated that she did not have =
a good
lawyer, and she had been taken advantage of by the State.She concluded her letter by stati=
ng,
“I need to appeal this decision,” and the family court treated
theletter as a notice of
appeal.After the notice was
forwarded to this Court, an attorney for mother asked that the letter be
treated as a motion to vacate or set aside the family court’s order,=
and
he requested that the matter be transferred to the family court so that it
could consider the motion.As
mother’s attorney explained, the letter raised “issues that on=
ly
can be dealt with effectively by the family court.”We granted mother’s request=
, and
transferred the matter to the family court.The family court scheduled a hear=
ing on
the motion, and provided mother with notice.Mother failed to appear at the he=
aring,
however, and the family court dismissed her motion.Mother then indicated that she in=
tended
to pursue her appeal with this Court.&nbs=
p;

Mother
now argues that the court erred by accepting her agreement to relinquish h=
er
residual parental rights because she did not knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily waive her constitutional right to family integrity.In support of this argument, moth=
er
maintains that: (1) the record does not show that mother knew that she had=
a
constitutional right at stake and that DCF had the burden of proving its c=
ase
by clear and convincing evidence; (2) the record is ambiguous as to whether
mother had adequate legal counsel, and had learned of her rights and
DCF’s burden; (3) there is no evidence that mother was informed that=
the
children’s foster parents did not have authority over contact between
mother and the children, and they might never have that authority; and (4)=
the
requirements of the Vermont Adoption Act, 15A V.S.A. § 1-101 et seq.,
apply to termination proceedings, and the requirements of that act were not
followed.

Putting
aside that mother did not file a timely notice of appeal, she failed to
preserve herarguments by fa=
iling
to adequately raise them below.Bull
v. Pinkham Eng’g Assocs., 170 Vt. 450, 459 (2000) (“Conten=
tions
not raised or fairly presented to the trial court are not preserved for
appeal.”).Mother did =
not
object to the family court’s acceptance of her agreement at the
termination hearing, nor did she ever indicate that her decision was not
knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made.Indeed, she testified to the
opposite—she stated that she agreed to give up her rights because she
believed that it was in the children’s best interests, she testified=
that
she was not under the influence of any drugs that might affect her
decision-making abilities, and she stated that she was “sure” =
that
she wanted to give up her rights.These sentiments are clearly set forth in theagreement, affidavit, and waiver,=
which
mother signed, and which were accepted into evidence without objection.Moreover, by transferring this ma=
tter
back to the family court, mother was provided with an opportunity to chall=
enge
the validity of her agreement, and raise specific arguments to the family<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> court.She failed to do so, and she cann=
ot
pursue them now for the first time on appeal.We note that the arguments that m=
other
offers in support of her primary claim were similarly not raised below. Because mother waived her right t=
o raise
these arguments, we do not address them on appeal.

Notwithstanding
the discussion above, we note that the record amply supports the family
court’s finding that mother voluntarily agreed to give up her residu=
al
parental rights, with a full understanding of the ramifications of her
decision.In addition to the=
clear
statements to this effect contained in the documents signed by mother, mot=
her
testified that she understood that by signing the affidavit in support of =
the
agreement to relinquish her rights, she was making a final decision, and c=
ould
not change her mind.She sta=
ted
that she was confident that she had made the right decision.Mother acknowledged signing a wai=
ver
giving up her right to further notice and appearance with regard to hearin=
gs
involving the children, and she testified that she understood that by sign=
ing
the waiver, she would not receive any additional notices about hearings
involving the children.She =
stated
that this was the decision that she wanted to make.Mother indicated that she had see=
n a
document from the children’s foster parents, indicating that they
intended to allow herto con=
tinue to
see the children.Mother sta=
ted
that she understood that this document was not legally enforceable.Mother indicated that she was sat=
isfied
with her attorney, a statement that is also reflected in her signed
affidavit.The family court =
asked
mother if she was making her decision of her own free will and whether she
believed her decision was in the children’s best interests.Mother responded affirmatively. The court specifically asked moth=
er if
she was satisfied that her action was in the children’s best interes=
ts,
and mother replied that it was.The
family court did not err in accepting mother’s agreement to relinqui=
sh
her residual parental rights, and its decision that termination was in the
children’s best interests is supported by the evidence.